22 points

Someone looked at the 10,000 year old dragon in body of thirteen year old trope and thought “wait wait! I can make that worse!”

permalink
report
reply
21 points

In case anybody skips the article, it’s a six year old cybernetically force grown to the body of a horny 13 to 14 year old.

The rare sentence that makes me want to take a shower for having written it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

ŪGH!!!<! WTF

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

Normal person: you should not be attracted to the mind or body of anyone under the age of consent, nor should you invent thought experiments to find loopholes.

Yud: i live to groom

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

Not to be fair to yud, but so much fiction (written by men) sexualizes ~14 year old girls and it gets really weird when you start to notice it. This includes beloved science fiction like Snow Crash for example. Im starting to get why so many of us misinterpreted Lolita, and why a lot of women/girls are a bit annoyed with the sexism at times.

permalink
report
reply
9 points

There are probably a lot of geeks who have bitter memories of being ostracised misfits in high school while all the jocks and popular kids were partying and presumably having all the sex, for whom the idea of teenage sex is like catnip. Hence the voyeuristic underage sex in geek-adjacent literature, the “actually, the term is ephebophilia” fedora bros and far worse things. (By some accounts, after Amazon engineers gentrified Seattle, the teenage prostitution rate there went up, due to cashed-up nerds “making up for lost time”.)

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

Dolores in Lolita was like twelve though, at least in the book.

edit: also I don’t think Yud recommending The Softcore Adventures Of A Six-year-old In A Thirteen-year-old’s Body as a Very Normal Book to his considerable audience fits this particular discourse.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

Not the point? The point is that it was common enough for men in literature to creep on children that the obvious criticism was missed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Nabokov’s Lolita really shouldn’t be pigeonholed as merely that, but I guess the movies are another story.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

“safe for work” means something very different when your work is basically smell-testing your own flatulence at the behest of Peter Thiel.

permalink
report
reply
12 points

Haven’t read the article yet but I can only assume the book is “Lolita X” where they find the cryonically frozen body of humbert humbert and they bring him to space

permalink
report
reply
15 points

Article was short. I was pretty close!

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

next up: “In The Barn” as first effective altruist text

permalink
report
reply

SneerClub

!sneerclub@awful.systems

Create post

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

[Especially don’t debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

Community stats

  • 362

    Monthly active users

  • 161

    Posts

  • 2.5K

    Comments